DottaandPaperclip
250429942e
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip helps people manage AI agents for work. > - New agents must pass setup and execution checks before they can run. > - The lifecycle worker saved the same retry message for every failure. > - Users could not identify the failed step or correct its configuration. > - The UI also described failed work as work still in progress. > - This pull request names the failed step and gives a safe corrective action. > - Users can identify configuration problems and understand automatic retries. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A new hire showed a paused status and “The lifecycle step failed. Retry the operation.” Repeated retries did not explain the failure. A successful retry cleared the original error. This change cannot recover an error that an older server already cleared. **Expected behavior** Name the failed setup step. Give a useful action for known execution test failures. Explain automatic retry. Keep provider output and credentials out of lifecycle errors. **Steps to reproduce** 1. Create a disposable agent with an unavailable model or invalid execution command. 2. Open its profile while verification fails. 3. Inspect the error, correct the configuration, and select Retry now. 4. Confirm that the failure disappears after the agent becomes ready. Related change: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/pull/16155 shows pending setup progress in creation and assignment. This change improves the cause and action shown when setup fails. ## What Changed - Save the failed lifecycle phase and step in the existing lifecycle error field. - Classify authentication, model, command, directory, timeout, and response failures from execution test check codes. - Use fixed error messages. Do not retain raw provider messages, check details, or credentials. - Share the allowed failure codes with the lifecycle log. - Show failed-state labels and automatic retry guidance. Rename Retry to Retry now. - Extend worker, database, and UI regression coverage. Update the agent verification maps. ## Verification - Passed 105 focused tests across lifecycle diagnostics, database lifecycle commands, saved harness verification, and AgentLifecycleStatus. - Passed server TypeScript compilation with `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec tsc --noEmit`. - Passed UI typecheck and production build. - Passed module boundary checks, token gates, character sync, map validation, and `git diff --check`. - Used Playwright to inspect the production component with a simulated model failure. Confirmed the failure text, retry guidance, retry callback, and recovered state. Captured a screenshot. This component check does not prove a live provider run. - Attempted `pnpm -r typecheck` and `pnpm build`. Both require Rust cargo, which is not installed in the local execution environment. - Started `pnpm test:run` locally. No final local suite result was recorded before handoff. The complete PR CI workflow passed. - Passed all latest-commit CI gates, including typecheck, build, general and serialized tests, Rust checks, and all eight browser test shards: https://github.com/paperclipai/paperclip/actions/runs/38726198774 - Greptile scored the latest commit 5/5 with no findings. There are no review threads to resolve. ## Risks - Failure classification depends on existing adapter check codes. Unknown codes use a safe fallback message. - A known code can describe only the checks reported by the adapter. - No database migration is required. The error field remains a string. - Retry schedules, leases, readiness, approvals, and budget controls keep their current behavior. - Full build verification requires a runner with Rust cargo. ## Model Used - OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex. Used reasoning, code editing, browser checks, and tool execution. The runtime does not expose the exact deployment ID or context window. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Paperclip agent access map
This map accompanies the feature map. It records APIs, agent entry points, permission boundaries and verification for the same capability IDs. The shared contract defines the format and maintenance rules.
Browse access contracts
The same-named feature recipes define navigation and capability IDs. Run
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs for the generated
maps/generated/agent-access-map.md index, or browse the
published feature guide.
Add or update the affected companion; there is no central registration or count.
Existing baseline source references describe the original inspection, not current verification. Record new executed evidence in the PR, issue, or CI artifact with its revision and scope. Do not refresh unrelated headers as bookkeeping.
Using an entry
Read its Policy and Gaps before selecting an agent path. Native fallback, legacy
REST/CLI, stdio MCP and a personal assistant connection can have different
authority and availability. Use a real admitted production binding; a scenario
declaration is not an installed tool. A restricted entry records current
enforcement and leaves any unresolved delegation decision visible.
For API catalog disagreements, follow the route/service authorization and record
discovery drift. For not-applicable, retain the concrete exception and local
path. Split shared business operations from client-only presentation.
Use maintain-verification-skill to reconcile changed source and both maps.
Use verify-paperclip and existing API/runner/MCP fixtures to collect the
permitted-agent and denial evidence; report blocked/not-run coverage honestly.
Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after editing. The structural check does not
certify permissions, API catalog coverage, tool admission or live behavior.
Native REST transport
The call_api parity change reconciles affected baselines against
58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b and the changes in this PR. Ordinary
REST operations use the same route authorization as legacy agent REST. Dedicated
tools remain optional for those operations; protocol endpoints still need their
existing clients. Board-only routes remain restricted for agent identity.
Native search_api / call_api requires operator rollout admission, a running
authorized native run, current task assignment and execution-run binding, company
and budget authority, task privacy, and a permitted work mode. Ask and Plan retain
mutation restrictions, and runs retain their admitted JWT scope during restart
recovery even when task mode changes. A waiting
agent does not gain independent native control just because a REST route exists.
Credential-bearing replies, including company exports and their legacy alias, stay inline under a 10 MiB limit and use encrypted mutation receipts. Other saved API snapshots are limited to the issuing actor and responsible user, plus authorized administrators. Artifact uploads enforce the same access checks as downloads; private snapshots are excluded from company exports and public company logos. Explicit deliverables use the existing sharing path. Native event history, checkpoints and completion records omit API bodies while preserving receipt metadata and replay digests. Restored webhook secrets use the same encrypted receipt and inline response policy as newly created webhook secrets. Task image access requires the company boundary and the task permission; skill-test and low-trust agents do not need company-wide browsing authority. Completion replay applies the same idempotent projection to stored and expected payloads; the run-log guide describes its fields.
Sources: API client,
catalog,
native authority,
credential storage classification,
snapshot access,
and history redaction. The affected entries remain
baseline and source-only; this reconciliation does not certify every operation.
Targeted real-route proof lives in the
API integration suite,
including owned routines, skill tests, scoped secrets, proposals and private export replay.